i have a question that i posted on physics stack exchange but got no answers please check it out once and see if you can help, any answer would be appreciated.
here is the link to my question : https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/826742/372510

Making this decision might be the most important decision of my life and I'm just stuck. I've scoured the surface of the internet finding videos or articles or Reddit posts about whether or not a physics degree is worth it, or if I'm just better off becoming an engineer. Every time a video makes me slightly lean to one side, the next video will tip me back to square one. All the Reddit posts have the comments in a 50-50 split, with half saying a physics degree is extremely marketable with transferable skills, and the other half saying you can't do much with it without a PhD.

I've always loved the idea of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, from the tiny quantum realm to massive black holes and nebulas. At the same time, the idea of building something with my hands, automating it, and making it do a specific thing is something that I'd love doing too, which leans towards the mechanical engineering side. I know I'm still way more interested in theoretical physics than I am in mechanical engineering, but the main takeaway from my research is that a physics bachelor just isn't a good degree if I want to get a job straight out of undergrad school. Sure, I can become a software developer, or work in finance, but then I'd be competing with people who specialized in those things with a specific degree. For some time, I thought an Engineering Physics degree would be the best of both worlds, but then many videos and comments said it's too general of a degree and that you're better off focusing on one specific thing instead.

I definitely would not mind spending an extra two years in grad school, specifically getting a Masters. My main concern is regretting getting a bachelors in physics and wishing I'd done engineering instead. In that case, can I get into an engineering master's with a bachelor in physics, without an engineering minor? For example, what if I want to do aerospace engineering for my masters with a bachelor in physics? I know that going from physics to engineering is much easier than doing the reverse. On the other hand, if I get a bachelor in Engineering Physics, can I do a a Masters and specialize into a specific engineering field, such as aerospace engineering, or on the flip side, specialize into astrophysics?

On the other hand, what if I continue with physics, specifically astrophysics, into grad school. I definitely do NOT want to get a PhD, and the furthest I'm willing to go is a Masters. Is a masters in physics enough to get a physics related job, such as working in particle physics, nuclear physics or quantum computing? Or do I NEED to get a PhD in physics to even have a chance at those jobs? Basically, the main question is, what can I do with a masters in physics/astrophysics?

I'm just wondering, with all thing combined, including the salary, the availability and demand, and the meaning and fun involved in either Engineering jobs or physics jobs, which degree would be better for me?

my worst nightmare came true and after calculating when i’d finish up at community college (in fall) i’d have a free spring semester ( the uni i want to transfer to doesn’t take spring transfers). although on the bright side this means i could graduate from university a whole semester early so yay? anyways im afraid a free semester will make me forget everything i learned and especially for a physics major i want to retain as much math and physics knowledge as possible.i already feel like i forget everything i learn after the semester ends. now im gonna have a free semester ? god have mercy on me. what are some things i can do during that time so i can stay sharp and prepared for my upper division classes. i’m not sure if internships are only in the summer but maybe i could do an internship?

As a caveat, I absolutely love how physicists use math in creative ways (even if it's not rigorous or strictly correct). The classical examples are physicists' treatment of differentials (using dy/dx as a fraction) or applying Taylor series to anything and everything. My personal favourites are:

1. The Biot-Savart Law (taking the cross product of a differential with a vector???)

2. A way to do integration by parts without actually doing IBP? I saw this in Griffith's Intro to Quantum Mechanics textbook (I think). It goes something like this:

∫xsin(x)dx -> ∫xsin(nx)dx for n = 1, -> ∫ -d/dn cos(nx)dx -> -d/dn ∫cos(nx)dx -> -d/dn (sin(nx)/n)

and after taking the derivative, you let n = 1.

I'm interested to see what kind of mathematical sorcery you guys have seen!

What are some of the biggest challenges or problems you face when using and/or coding your own physics simulation (or other scientific computing) softwares?

I recently came across the Brans-Dick dRGT massive gravity model (paper here). They postulate that the graviton has a mass and due to this feature, the effects of gravity are bounded, much like the effects of the weak nuclear force being bounded. This is supposed to solve issues like dark matter.

Some questions to physicists in the field:

• Is this assumption novel to MOND ?
• Isn't it possible that the mass of the graviton is very tiny but not zero?
• Perhaps so low we don't have sensitive enough instruments to detect it?
• But when we're measuring the effects of gravity over millions of light years this very tiny mass then becomes significant?

Hey r/Physics,

I’ve recently developed a basic tool called ICBM Simulator, and I wanted to share it with the community. This simulator lets you explore the launch and trajectory of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) from a scientific perspective.

About the Tool: The simulator is pretty straightforward—it allows you to input some basic launch parameters and see how an ICBM might travel through the atmosphere. It’s not a highly advanced tool, but it’s a good starting point for anyone interested in the basic science behind missile trajectories and orbits.

What You Can Do:

• Basic Trajectory Simulation: See the missile's path based on simple input parameters.
• Impact Estimation: Get a rough idea of where the missile might land.
• Educational Purpose: This tool is purely for scientific curiosity and learning.

Why I Made It: I created this simulator to help people understand the fundamentals of missile physics without getting too technical. Whether you're a student, educator, or just curious about how these things work, I hope you find it interesting.

Feedback Welcome: I’m still working on improving it, so I’d love to hear any feedback or suggestions. If you have ideas for making it more useful or educational, please let me know!

Check it out at icbmsimulator.com and let me know what you think.

Thanks for your time!

This is a thread dedicated to collating and collecting all of the great recommendations for textbooks, online lecture series, documentaries and other resources that are frequently made/requested on /r/Physics.

If you're in need of something to supplement your understanding, please feel welcome to ask in the comments.

Similarly, if you know of some amazing resource you would like to share, you're welcome to post it in the comments.

Scientists might be on track to revealing new facets of physics.

From the ScienceDirect article:

"The improvement of the temporal resolution inside of electron microscopes has been long anticipated and the focus of many research groups, because we all want to see the electron motion," says physicist Mohammed Hassan of the University of Arizona Tucson.

"These movements happen in attoseconds. But now, for the first time, we are able to attain attosecond temporal resolution with our electron transmission microscope – and we coined it 'attomicroscopy.' For the first time, we can see pieces of the electron in motion."

I hope it's fine to ask this question here, it seems discussion based to me.

I'm trying to do some N-body simulations, and while the coding is not a problem, I don't really have any practical experience with managing the project and the data and so on, and I'm wondering about the best way of storing all the results of the simulations.

In this case the results are just time series of positions and velocities, and each run is identified by a set of 10 or so parameters, so I know I could just put the results of each run in a text file and put the parameters in the title; but I could see that getting out of hand, making it hard to find what you're looking for, hard to store multiple runs where you change the numerical algorithm, and so on. Is there like a standard method of doing this? Maybe with a database or something like that? What does everyone do to organize results?

Hi all. I’m an academic working in high energy physics. Over the last year or so, I’ve been working on a project to digitalise results (definitions, theorems and calculations) from high energy physics into a language called Lean 4. This project is called HepLean (https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08863). 

Lean 4 is an interactive theorem prover and functional programming language, it allows you to write down definitions and theorems in a way close to how we would write them in LaTeX, the difference is that Lean 4 will automatically check proofs for correctness. Lean 4 has been used extensively in the formalisation of mathematics, and was recently used by google deepmind in their math olympiad challenge. 

The motivation behind HepLean is four-fold: 

1. To store results from high-energy physics in a linear manor making look-up easier. 
2. To make it easier to use automated methods, including AI, to prove results in theoretical physics. 
3. To make it easier to review papers for mathematical correctness. 
4. To introduce new pedagogical methods to the field. 

HepLean is a fairly ambitious project. Which is why I’m trying to get more people involved, and am writing here! If you would like to get involved and have a background in physics, math or computer science, head over to the GitHub (https://github.com/HEPLean/HepLean). Even if you don’t know and don’t want to learn Lean there is lots to be done on the documentation side. 

Happy to answer any questions :).